In any field—business, politics, education, government—those in power should be required to step down after five years.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing a

In contemporary society the idea exists that in any field from business to government people in charge ought to be required to step down after five years. Although this idea has many proponents, perhaps, because it promises to control governors and revitalize endeavors, I cannot concur with it owing to the reasons discussed in details below.

To begin with, many of us honestly believe that the proposed policy may bring many advantages to today's society. In fact, it may prevent any leader from usurping power and becoming a tyrant; moreover, the implementation of the policy may revitalize enterprisers by inflowing new ideas and concepts with new leaders. To illustrate an idea we may take a look at USA’s justice system. In fact, today judges who work with the constitution are elected once and for life-time. As a result, some of the judges represent, in my opinion, obsolete understanding of reality and therefore they impede development of our society. For example, because of their stance, Obama care might have been canceled. The fulfillment of the policy may solve the problem and accelerate our social evolution.

Unfortunately, although the policy has some positive aspects, its wording hides some undesirable side-effects as well. For instance, we are told that the proposal ought to be implemented in all fields of our endeavor but is it a reasonable stance? Perhaps, the answer is "no", for instance, in business other criterion of efficiency exists - profits. In case, a leader is effective and makes proceeds, why should he or she be substituted by a new person? In this case, the policy may hurt business because it suggests mechanically replacing leaders who do their job well. Probably the best illustration of absurdness on the policy is that if it were implemented, a former head of Apple inc. - Mr. Jobs would have to be replaced despite his talent and provisions in 2001 after he presented the revolutionary iPod. Consequently, the policy should not and cannot be fulfilled in all fields.

Furthermore, the second part of the prompt avers that all governors should be asked to step down after five years in charge. This claim is dubious because the longevity of being in power is an important tool which may and should be used to steer behavior of leaders. Probably, the best example of this idea may be find in government structure of the USA. As we know the term of a member of the House is limited by two-years span; at the same time, a senator should be reelected each six years. This difference in longevity of terms creates a balance between voters and the government because representatives are more connected with their voters and senators are more independent and less prone to populist decision as a result their mutual decisions tend to be thoughtful. Moreover, the power of the president is limited by two terms for four years each. This policy helps to avoid usurping power by one person. Those examples demonstrate that fulfillment of the policy will deprived us of an efficient and convenient lever of steering leaders’ conduct.

In conclusion, although implementation of the policy promises to bring some positive fruits, in reality we will probably face some dare consequences which definitely outweigh the advantages. Consequently, the policy should not be fulfilled.